Terry v. City of New York

Background

Christopher Terry and James Truell, both representing themselves, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal constitutional rights. They sued Security Captain Hernandez, Assistant Deputy Warden E. Rivera, Facility Legal Coordinator Alou, an unnamed grievance coordinator, and the City of New York. The allegations concerned conduct while Terry and Truell were detained at New York City’s Manhattan Detention Center.

The original complaint alleged that the plaintiffs had to submit a request form to use the facility law library, that Hernandez and Rivera prevented them from calling 311, and that a grievance coordinator failed to collect or properly answer their grievance forms. Each plaintiff sought $1 million in damages and an injunction requiring full access to the law library and a LexisNexis word-processing kiosk. Truell later alleged that mail, Bibles, literature, and family letters were withheld from him, and that he suffered bodily harm on two dates. The court treated Truell’s letter and the complaint together as the First Amended Complaint.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but did not accept unsupported legal conclusions as facts.

Claims against the individual defendants

The court held that the allegations did not state a constitutional violation sufficient for a § 1983 claim.

- Law-library and court-access claim: The allegations that plaintiffs had to complete a request form to use the law library, and had to speak with the legal coordinator to obtain legal materials, could be read as a claim that they were denied access to the courts. But such a claim required an actual injury to a non-frivolous case involving a criminal conviction, a petition challenging custody, or the conditions of confinement. The First Amended Complaint did not identify any such injury. The court also stated that violations of state or local detention regulations, by themselves, do not violate federal rights. - Grievance-processing claim: The plaintiffs alleged that their grievance forms were not collected or answered on time. The court held that detainees do not have a constitutional right to a particular grievance process or to receive a response to a grievance. This claim therefore could not support a § 1983 action. - 311-call claim: The plaintiffs alleged that they were not allowed to call 311. The court found that they identified no support for treating access to that number as a protected liberty interest and cited decisions holding that restrictions on detainees’ phone privileges generally do not support a § 1983 claim. - Withheld property: Truell’s allegations about withheld property could be read as a procedural due-process claim. The court rejected that claim because New York provided a post-deprivation remedy through its Court of Claims for property allegedly taken or damaged by prison officials. - Mail: The court recognized that prisoners’ incoming and outgoing mail receives First Amendment protection and that legal and outgoing mail may receive greater protection. But the complaint did not allege enough facts to show that the defendants interfered with Truell’s mail regularly and without justification. - Excessive force: Truell alleged that defendants caused bodily harm, but the allegation was conclusory. The court required details about who did what, the defendants’ state of mind, the amount and type of force, the injury, its severity and duration, and any treatment. Without those details, the excessive-force claim was insufficient.

Claims against the City

The court dismissed the claims against New York City for two reasons. First, the First Amended Complaint did not adequately allege an underlying constitutional violation. Second, it did not allege facts showing that the alleged misconduct resulted from a City policy or custom. The court explained that a municipality is not automatically responsible under § 1983 for its employees’ actions; municipal liability requires a policy, custom, or official decision that directly caused the violation.

Leave to replead and disposition

The court stated that claims based on grievance processing and phone use could not be repleaded because they failed as a matter of law. Plaintiffs could seek permission to file another amended complaint addressing law-library access, legal property, mail tampering, excessive force, and the existence of a City policy. Any proposed complaint also had to identify what each individual defendant allegedly did and, for the City claim, facts showing the policy that caused the misconduct.

The defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint was granted. The plaintiffs were required by March 5, 2021, to submit a letter of no more than three pages and a proposed Second Amended Complaint if they wished to seek permission to replead, or to request additional time. If they did neither, the case would be dismissed. The clerk was directed to close the case and mail the order to the plaintiffs.

Note on the opinion’s dates

The background section identifies Truell’s alleged bodily-harm dates as October 28, 2019, and February 24, 2020. The later discussion identifies the second date as February 2, 2020. The opinion does not explain the discrepancy.